WASHINGTON (MarketWatch)  President Barack Obama would veto a House Republican bill that requires Congress to add a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution before raising the countrys debt limit, the White House said Monday, as action in the debt-ceiling debate moved to Capitol Hill.

The House GOPs Cut, Cap and Balance Act would undercut the governments ability to meet its core commitments to seniors, middle-class families and the most vulnerable, while reducing our ability to invest in our future, the White House said in a policy statement about the bill, which would also cut spending from the 2012 budget and cap future spending.

House Republicans are planning a Tuesday vote on the bill, which would raise the debt ceiling by $2.4 trillion and require matching spending cuts. The bill, one of several plans for raising the debt limit and cutting spending, is expected to fail in the Senate. Read a summary of the Cut, Cap and Balance Act.

The U.S. government is facing an Aug. 2 deadline for raising the debt ceiling, according to the Treasury Department, and Obama met over the weekend with House Speaker John Boehner and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor to discuss the debt limit.

There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how to propose an amendment. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both houses of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be ratified, or approved, by three-fourths of states. There are two ways to do this, too. The text of the amendment may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention. See the Ratification Convention Page for a discussion of the make up of a convention. Amendments are sent to the legislatures of the states by default. Only one amendment, the 21st, specified a convention. In any case, passage by the legislature or convention is by simple majority.

The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment:

Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used)
Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)
Proposal by Congress, ratification by state legislatures (used all other times)

It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798]):

The negative of the President applies only to the ordinary cases of legislation: He has nothing to do with the proposition, or adoption, of amendments to the Constitution.

Who amount us this this could POSSIBLY happen?????

3
posted on 07/18/2011 3:37:33 PM PDT
by radioone
(How Can an Obscure Guy Who Did Diddly Squat in the Senate Become President?)

It is fluff and that's why once the Senate rejects it, the House should come back with the same bill absent the BBA, send it to the Senate and tell Obama and the Rats to take or leave or even “Shove it”.

Democrats and Obama simply criticize and demagogue these issues. Democrats and Obama simply say they oppose Republican proposals, without putting forth proposals of their own.

Remember when the Dems. said the Republicans were the party of “no”? Who is the party of “no” now?????

As difficult as this issue is, there’s no reason why it can’t be resolved through tough give and take negotiations. But real negotiations require good faith efforts. We can’t just have 0bama get p**sed off, tell Eric Cantor not to call his bluff, and threaten that Social Security checks won’t be issued.

Watch the 10 year treasury to determine if WS thinks that these DC BSers are NOT going to raise the debt ceiling....
If the yield starts skyrocketing then we have a problem...so far nothing but crickets on the yield...

Watch the 10 year treasury to determine if WS thinks that these DC BSers are NOT going to raise the debt ceiling....
If the yield starts skyrocketing then we have a problem...so far nothing but crickets on the yield...

“Obama wants to take the south side of chicago national, turn the country into one big slumblord fest....as a community organizer, he is perfect for this task, spreading misery equally.... “

I agree with you. Equally to the point, he is a racist and seems to truly believe that the people who live in the slums and dangerous neighborhoods of the south side of Chicago bear no personal responsibility for their plight. It's all because of those privileged non-minorities, and redistributing what they have is totally fair. I believe the way to bring out the true face of Obama is to push him on exactly this. Who does he think is to blame for the ghettos? Who does he think is to blame for poverty? Who does he think is to blame for violent crime?

Racists of any stripe are intolerable. It doesn't matter which way the arrow is pointing.

Obama as usual, is mis-reading the American people. Americans are in serious de-leverage mode, they have been sacrificing for the last 4 years.

The polls show that Americans want the fed govt to DE-LEVER now just as they are doing. It is not Americans who need to eat their peas (I prefer to call it the crap-sandwich) it is the fed govt that needs to eat the peas.

Here are some amazing stats on Americans and how they are saving now..

About 24% of Americans that vote... love this guy and still believe he is the best president we have ever had... that everything is the fault of Bush and republicans... another 20% are just leftist rats and their evil subcultures.

“It is interesting to note that at no point does the President have a role in the formal amendment process (though he would be free to make his opinion known). He cannot veto an amendment proposal, nor a ratification. This point is clear in Article 5, and was reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Hollingsworth v Virginia (3 US 378 [1798])...”

The above quote preempts the president from vetoing an amendment bill to require a balanced budget. I was wondering whether additional non amendment legislation contained within the bill could be separated from it and vetoed by the Marxist.

What is wrong with Republicans? Just send the bill out of the house and let him veto it if it ever gets to his desk. I have never seen such a bunch of incompetent politicians in my life. Where is their fighting spirit?

They elected him. The GOP failed to expose him. The GOP failed to kill Obamacare or any other big government agencies. So here we are babbling about the rate of Medicare and social security in 20 years. This is not what I signed up for.

31
posted on 07/18/2011 5:17:08 PM PDT
by screaminsunshine
(Socialism...Easier said than done.)

The Democrat-dominated Congress inherited the situation in 2007, and continued the domination of Congress for 4 years  the first 2 under a compliant Republican[1] president, and next 2 under a sympathetic Democrat. During that short time, and in contrast to promises to end deficit spending (by whatever means), the debt increased nearly 60%[2]. AFAIK, no substantive spending cuts have been passed by either chamber during this period. To the contrary, the only recurring & earnest deficit-reduction suggestion is end the Bush tax cuts for the rich; eliminating the deficit thru tax increase would require a 100% rate on all income over $200,000.

At some point the steaming bag on the desk is the current occupants responsibility.
Especially when a second one appears during the occupancy.

1  issued 12 vetos, half of which were resolved or overridden, the rest were not significant economic differences.
2  thats a 60% increase in 4 years over what debt had accumulated in more than 2 centuries.

Obama as usual, is mis-reading the American people. Americans are in serious de-leverage mode, they have been sacrificing for the last 4 years.

Correct. I think there are three (maybe more) reasons for this: 1) people are in a defensive mode and want to have plenty of cash on hand because they fear losing their jobs or an economic collapse, 2) this is a backlash against Obama. People are not spending because they don't want the economy to improve while Obama is still in office, and 3) people are starving the government beast because they know that's the only way the beast will retreat.

If a Republican is elected in 2012, the wallets will open, not only on the part of individuals, but also on the part of businesses.

36
posted on 07/18/2011 5:45:10 PM PDT
by randita
(All we are sayin' is give peas a chance...)

Does anybody in their right mind REALLY think the kleptocrats now in Congress can solve this Gordian Knot problem of debt-versus-spending? I sure don't. Hell, they've been ignoring the Constitution since FDR!

Instead, only We The People can set the right course. Call a Constitutional Convention, under Article V, for the purpose of making Amendments.

What's the WORST that could happen? That a full re-write of the Constitution is attempted? WELL, FINE! Let them try to get even ONE the several States to ratify that crap! Ain't gonna happen.

What's the BEST that could happen? That We The People make the needed Amendments to nail the debt problem, and the runaway Congress, to the wall. We can throw in Term Limits too, just for principles.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.